Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The real problem we need to solve is to figure out why it's more common here for people to acquire the intention to kill, not the means.

Is it? No-one has shown me any evidence of this.

Nor have I seen hard evidence per se that actual mass killings are more frequent here, or now, than elsewhere, or before. It could simply be that they receive more coverage here and now for me, than they did before or elsewhere, and I simply don't know of them. But anecdotal and other circumstantial evidence leads me to suspect that they in fact are. I find it implausible that anyone would commit these killings without the intention, and I also find it implausible that they would be stopped by some means more in the past than they are now. Therefore, I suspect that the truth of the matter is that intention is increasing, whether it is possible to be shown or even to gather evidence of it or not. Do you disagree?

It seems that maybe I'm half right, they have not increased absolutely, but they have relatively. I don't know if this source is accurate, but if it is I would say that this supports my underlying thesis: there is some unknown cause that leads people to the intention to kill like this, and that cause has not been addressed along with the various known causes of conventional murder which have somewhat been addressed. For example, enforcement can ameliorate the motives of conventional murder, however I highly doubt that spree murderers care what happens afterwards so for them enforcement is largely irrelevant.

So here's my question to the more fervent gun advocates: Am I misreading the situation or has your side effectively set-up a no-win situation in regards to gun control? i.e., More regulation would only put people at a disadvantage is gun crimes are becoming more prevalent; If gun crimes are going down, more regulation isn't needed.

---

I'm also curious as to the entire "Criminals will still have access to guns" argument. I don't disagree with the logic that there will be criminals that get access because of their willingness to contravene the law. My question is, how are they getting access to these guns in the first place? I'm doing some googling right now, but I'd really welcome additional info. Are we not doing enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

---

Sadly, with the talk of gun access, I saw an article pointing out that in the vast majority of these mass shootings the killer has been using legally purchased firearms. I don't have a hard number in mind (nor reasoning to back it up) but could there be a ratio that indicates guns are too easily accessible (Edit: I guess this is a roundabout way of viewing some of these crimes as preventable.)

---

With the focus on the benefit of self-defense the second amendment affords, I find it surprising that I can't recall any(many?) of these shooters being taken down by private citizens rather than law enforcement or their own hand. Given the supposed broad enjoyment of the second amendment, am I right to have expected differently?

---

Gun proponents – what suggestions do you have to decrease these types of incidents in the future that do not require an increase in either armed personnel (i.e., air marshals only for schools) or increased proliferation of an armed populace?

(Regulation advocates – I challenge you to do the same substituting increased regulation for increased arms in the question above)

---

I see this as partly a technological problem. I'm unaware of these types of mass killing 100 years ago but in the short term they (anecdotally) appear to be increasing. Is it possible that there will be a point in the future where the second amendment could be seen as a liability rather than a benefit?

Further, do gun advocates have an answer for why gun crimes in general are so much lower in countries with stricter regulation compared to our own (i.e. unconsidered factors other than laws)? If it were shown that increased regulation did curb related crime, would advocates then feel that increased gun crime (and death) is a passable price to pay for the increased security from tyranny that guns are supposed to provide or would you become amenable to some regulatory concessions?

---

Speaking of freedom from tyranny, are there any examples of our second amendment rights being exercised in our history to prevent just that in contrast to these mass killings that have taken up so much of the media focus in recent years?

Political corruption can only break the rules as long as they're still generally in line with what the people think is ok.

Isn't the entire point of anyone being able to bear arms that anyone can lead this revolution? You don't need raw numbers to be outspoken or attempt such a thing. I don't see any gun toters threatening to exercise their rights if the government doesn't shape up in regards to its shenanigans.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Regardless, the metric of "then people die" is fundamentally broken. But really that's irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that the "people die" argument is dishonest.

You claim it's dishonest, but I'm not seeing any explanation.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I could argue that the intended purpose of guns is not killing, but forcing the preservation of our freedoms (from tyranny, from crime, etc).

You could, but I don't think it'd be successful. A gun as a deterrent is only effective if the person is willing to fire it (aka take lives). Further you're speaking of the gun a symbol where we're dealing with it as a tool being used as designed.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Now who's being dishonest? Yeah when I see the 21st century version of redcoats coming, or a home invader, I'm going to hold them off with my Kia. That will stop them!

I'm being purposely absurd. Everyone admits cars can be quite dangerous. However if I wanted to go on a killing spree (or protect myself) I think a gun would be far more effective. So even from the perspective that "cars kill" guns still do the job better.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yes or no, a mentally ill individual would have little difficulty obtaining a car to drive through a school, even if he wasn't licensed to drive?
The difference of course is intention. Not means and not result, but intention. Cars can be made safer from unintended deaths, but it's much more difficult to stop someone with the intention to cause deaths. No safety regulations on cars will ever stop someone who decides that they want to use it to kill. And the same is true of guns. The real problem we need to solve is to figure out why it's more common here for people to acquire the intention to kill, not the means.

What do you think the death toll would have been if the Connecticut shooter has used a car instead?

Sadly, with the talk of gun access, I saw an article pointing out that in the vast majority of these mass shootings the killer has been using legally purchased firearms.

Sure but in this case and Columbine, I'm not sure about the others, they weren't used by the purchaser so they would qualify as illegally obtained in my book.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

With the focus on the benefit of self-defense the second amendment affords, I find it surprising that I can't recall any(many?) of these shooters being taken down by private citizens rather than law enforcement or their own hand. Given the supposed broad enjoyment of the second amendment, am I right to have expected differently?

Because they go places were regulation prohibit you from carrying firearms so they can be assured that they will be the only one armed.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Further, do gun advocates have an answer for why gun crimes in general are so much lower in countries with stricter regulation compared to our own

Is gun crime lower in these countries? There was a chart but it was absolute numbers not percapita. What about crime related homicides in these countries. If stricter regulation just changes the weapon of choice its obviously not the solution.

Sure but in this case and Columbine, I'm not sure about the others, they weren't used by the purchaser so they would qualify as illegally obtained in my book.

Great point. This qualifies as a grey area for me. They still had easy access thanks to their relation to someone with legal access. This leaves us with the unanswerable hypothetical of what would have happened if they did not have easy access, or how many mass shootings haven't occurred for the same reason.

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

Because they go places were regulation prohibit you from carrying firearms so they can be assured that they will be the only one armed.

I'm not a an expert – is conceal carry banned in Aurora movie theaters and at that mall where a shooting occurred last week?

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

Is gun crime lower in these countries? There was a chart but it was absolute numbers not percapita. What about crime related homicides in these countries. If stricter regulation just changes the weapon of choice its obviously not the solution.

I agree, we must measure per capita and that if the method changes but the numbers stay similar, there is no benefit.

Further, do gun advocates have an answer for why gun crimes in general are so much lower in countries with stricter regulation compared to our own

Is gun crime lower in these countries? There was a chart but it was absolute numbers not percapita. What about crime related homicides in these countries. If stricter regulation just changes the weapon of choice its obviously not the solution.

This is a random Slate article someone sent me. I have not done any further background research to see if there are rebuttals to this piece, but it does raise some interesting notes from Australia's recent tightening of firearm legislation.

Political corruption can only break the rules as long as they're still generally in line with what the people think is ok.

Isn't the entire point of anyone being able to bear arms that anyone can lead this revolution? You don't need raw numbers to be outspoken or attempt such a thing. I don't see any gun toters threatening to exercise their rights if the government doesn't shape up in regards to its shenanigans.

Because the shenanigans really aren't all that bad currently. Objectively, the last 235 years of governance actually have arrived at an increasingly tolerable system, and our quarrels tend to be over less and less divergent issues over time. We're not suffering through child labor or slavery anymore, and overall we still get more from "society" than it costs us. Let's maintain a little perspective here.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Regardless, the metric of "then people die" is fundamentally broken. But really that's irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that the "people die" argument is dishonest.

I could argue that the intended purpose of guns is not killing, but forcing the preservation of our freedoms (from tyranny, from crime, etc).

You could, but I don't think it'd be successful. A gun as a deterrent is only effective if the person is willing to fire it (aka take lives). Further you're speaking of the gun a symbol where we're dealing with it as a tool being used as designed.

You're not making any sense. Police use their gun as a tool without firing it. I don't understand how you can't see a home owner doing the same. And taking lives, while certainly not assured, is also not forbidden, if it's self defense.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Now who's being dishonest? Yeah when I see the 21st century version of redcoats coming, or a home invader, I'm going to hold them off with my Kia. That will stop them!

I'm being purposely absurd. Everyone admits cars can be quite dangerous. However if I wanted to go on a killing spree (or protect myself) I think a gun would be far more effective. So even from the perspective that "cars kill" guns still do the job better.

Then why are more people killed by cars than by guns?

Edit:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yes or no, a mentally ill individual would have little difficulty obtaining a car to drive through a school, even if he wasn't licensed to drive?
The difference of course is intention. Not means and not result, but intention. Cars can be made safer from unintended deaths, but it's much more difficult to stop someone with the intention to cause deaths. No safety regulations on cars will ever stop someone who decides that they want to use it to kill. And the same is true of guns. The real problem we need to solve is to figure out why it's more common here for people to acquire the intention to kill, not the means.

What do you think the death toll would have been if the Connecticut shooter has used a car instead?

That's irrelevant. We can feel it warming up. No one is doing anything.

What slogan did Obama run on? "Change"
It wouldn't happen till things get bad enough and the political process fails to provide a solution. I don't think things are bad enough now that it would happen but its not about now its about preventing the seemingly impossible.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

So you don't think there is a problem of any kind then?

What's wildly out of context. There are lots of different kinds of problems.

I think the victims' families should be allowed and encouraged to sue the NRA for promoting gun ownership. Anyone who has ever had a family member shot by an NRA member or someone from a members' household. That might push the NRA to push a message of safe and secure storage and maybe even keeping guns away from minors.

If a minor can't be trusted with any amount of alcohol, why is it ok for them to be trusted with guns? There is an age limit on cars and sex, guns are at least as dangerous as either of those things so an age limit seems like a good idea.

Its all very well arguing that laws like that would be unenforceable but you have to start somewhere.

Also, the fact that some portion of the population may disobey a law doesn't make it unenforceable.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

So here's my question to the more fervent gun advocates: Am I misreading the situation or has your side effectively set-up a no-win situation in regards to gun control? i.e., More regulation would only put people at a disadvantage is gun crimes are becoming more prevalent; If gun crimes are going down, more regulation isn't needed.

And vice versa: gun control advocates could say that regulations are working if crime drops, and say more is needed if crime rises. Ditto climate change: if it abates then our efforts are working, and if it continues then we need to do more. Ultimately it's simply not enough information to go on, it needs to be corroborated by independent means. We don't decide whether climate change is real based on whether it rises or falls, we decide based on other independent data.

I'm also curious as to the entire "Criminals will still have access to guns" argument. I don't disagree with the logic that there will be criminals that get access because of their willingness to contravene the law. My question is, how are they getting access to these guns in the first place? I'm doing some googling right now, but I'd really welcome additional info. Are we not doing enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

Is google more helpful with how to buy heroin? I've never tried to find either through the internet before.

Sadly, with the talk of gun access, I saw an article pointing out that in the vast majority of these mass shootings the killer has been using legally purchased firearms. I don't have a hard number in mind (nor reasoning to back it up) but could there be a ratio that indicates guns are too easily accessible (Edit: I guess this is a roundabout way of viewing some of these crimes as preventable.)

Lowest hanging fruit? I don't think this can tell us much. If Pot was legal I doubt many would get it illegally, but this doesn't inform us at all about how difficult it is to get illegally.

Gun proponents – what suggestions do you have to decrease these types of incidents in the future that do not require an increase in either armed personnel (i.e., air marshals only for schools) or increased proliferation of an armed populace?

(Regulation advocates – I challenge you to do the same substituting increased regulation for increased arms in the question above)

No idea.

I see this as partly a technological problem. I'm unaware of these types of mass killing 100 years ago but in the short term they (anecdotally) appear to be increasing. Is it possible that there will be a point in the future where the second amendment could be seen as a liability rather than a benefit?

To me this is irrelevant. It's not that I don't share the same goals, I simply don't believe that the proscribed strategy will be at all effective. Likewise I don't oppose the goal of ending narcotic abuse, I'm just appalled at the awful strategy for curbing it.

Further, do gun advocates have an answer for why gun crimes in general are so much lower in countries with stricter regulation compared to our own (i.e. unconsidered factors other than laws)? If it were shown that increased regulation did curb related crime, would advocates then feel that increased gun crime (and death) is a passable price to pay for the increased security from tyranny that guns are supposed to provide or would you become amenable to some regulatory concessions?

Reversed cause and effect. Less violent populations (due to whatever cause) are less likely to oppose gun regulation, even if that regulation is a placebo.

Speaking of freedom from tyranny, are there any examples of our second amendment rights being exercised in our history to prevent just that in contrast to these mass killings that have taken up so much of the media focus in recent years?

What about the civil war? Look I know it's hard to look past the orthogonal moralities of that conflict, but suppose it was the slave states that had been in power, would you want Washington's ability to disarm their political opponents to dictate the outcome of the conflict, if Washington had happened to be controlled by a southerner at the time?

Is gun crime lower in these countries? There was a chart but it was absolute numbers not percapita. What about crime related homicides in these countries. If stricter regulation just changes the weapon of choice its obviously not the solution.

I agree, we must measure per capita and that if the method changes but the numbers stay similar, there is no benefit.

Now, I'm not familiar with what countries have the most strict of lax gun laws (outside of these) so these numbers lack a real meaningful comparison right now.

My understanding is that the US leads all first-world countries in gun-related crimes/homicides on a per-capita basis. My brief look at those numbers seemed to suggest that was the case. Anyone see it differently?

More specifically then, do you believe there is no problem that needs to be solved in order to attempt to prevent further spree killings?

No. But that't not what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

My understanding is that the US leads all first-world countries in gun-related crimes/homicides on a per-capita basis. My brief look at those numbers seemed to suggest that was the case. Anyone see it differently?

It looks like it does, the part that's missing is total crime related homicides per capita not just the gun related ones.

To me this is irrelevant. It's not that I don't share the same goals, I simply don't believe that the proscribed strategy will be at all effective.

Why not?

You keep coming up with workaround excuses as to why the "proscribed strategy" (presumably, of limited access to firearms) will not be effective, despite evidence that other countries which have taken steps to more strictly regulate access to firearms have noticed an effective difference.

Your excuses (as well as others) seem to essentially boil down to "we're different than everyone else; what worked elsewhere, will not work here". And everyone else is looking around, and scratching their heads, and then not buying that excuse.

Quick question before I respond to anymore of your posts – am I dealing with Devil's Advocate Skeleton here or are these actually your beliefs?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Because the shenanigans really aren't all that bad currently. Objectively, the last 235 years of governance actually have arrived at an increasingly tolerable system, and our quarrels tend to be over less and less divergent issues over time. We're not suffering through child labor or slavery anymore, and overall we still get more from "society" than it costs us. Let's maintain a little perspective here.
It's a double-standard, simple as that. "People die" for X and it's ok, "people die" for Y and it's unthinkable. Double standard.
You're not making any sense. Police use their gun as a tool without firing it. I don't understand how you can't see a home owner doing the same. And taking lives, while certainly not assured, is also not forbidden, if it's self defense.
Then why are more people killed by cars than by guns?
Yeah, sidewalk.

To me this is irrelevant. It's not that I don't share the same goals, I simply don't believe that the proscribed strategy will be at all effective.

Why not?

Drug war. Prohibition. And to a lesser extent, war on terror. And to a greater extent, kids still smoke, if they try hard enough, and no one tries harder than a spree killer who has decided he doesn't care if he survives anymore. Murder is already illegal. Making other parts of the process also illegal doesn't seem like a smart plan.

You keep coming up with workaround excuses as to why the "proscribed strategy" (presumably, of limited access to firearms) will not be effective, despite evidence that other countries which have taken steps to more strictly regulate access to firearms have noticed an effective difference.

My understanding is that the US leads all first-world countries in gun-related crimes/homicides on a per-capita basis. My brief look at those numbers seemed to suggest that was the case. Anyone see it differently?

It looks like it does, the part that's missing is total crime related homicides per capita not just the gun related ones.

As in, murders? I'm sure that should be relatively easy to find, although murder rates start getting weird when you compare countries of different sizes.

Quick question before I respond to anymore of your posts – am I dealing with Devil's Advocate Skeleton here or are these actually your beliefs?

Some of both. On general quality of life, on the ability of people to game the system, and on highway carnage, I am a firm believer. On guns I'm wishy washy; I've fired a gun about 5 times in my life, and never owned one. On legislating morality I guess I'm a zealot; the worst thing is when we become mindless automatons in the aftermath of misfortune, that's when the terrorists have won or whatever.

To me this is irrelevant. It's not that I don't share the same goals, I simply don't believe that the proscribed strategy will be at all effective.

Why not?

Drug war. Prohibition. And to a lesser extent, war on terror. And to a greater extent, kids still smoke, if they try hard enough, and no one tries harder than a spree killer who has decided he doesn't care if he survives anymore. Murder is already illegal. Making other parts of the process also illegal doesn't seem like a smart plan.

Then why doesn't this happen nearly as much in other countries where access to firearms is not nearly so easy?

Also: I will repeat my argument that no one is calling for a total ban here. Those things did not work for Prohibition or the War on Drugs, but they did work for at least Prohibition and Smoking (note: kids do not smoke nearly as much as they did previously), and it sounds like we'll figure out about drugs.

You keep coming up with workaround excuses as to why the "proscribed strategy" (presumably, of limited access to firearms) will not be effective, despite evidence that other countries which have taken steps to more strictly regulate access to firearms have noticed an effective difference.

First, despite being everywhere and easier to access and use than firearms, you only found one example of a car being used for a killing spree, and it's from 25 years ago.

Second, he struck 54 people and killed one. That's an incredibly low mortality rate, right? And that's with intent to kill.

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

What slogan did Obama run on? "Change"

That's kind of meaningless without context. Did Change mean reverting to previous principles? Did it mean creating new ones? Or did it mean improving things within the existing framework?

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

It wouldn't happen till things get bad enough and the political process fails to provide a solution. I don't think things are bad enough now that it would happen but its not about now its about preventing the seemingly impossible.

And you're right, any kind of rebellion now would likely be an overreaction (at least we'd have to try to have our complaints addressed through the system first).
The way I'm interpreting things, armed rebellion is sort of the "nuclear option" in the Constitution. However, we're getting a lot of collateral damage for something that may never be exercised and I can sympathize with people who have a problem with that.

To me this is irrelevant. It's not that I don't share the same goals, I simply don't believe that the proscribed strategy will be at all effective.

Why not?

Drug war. Prohibition. And to a lesser extent, war on terror. And to a greater extent, kids still smoke, if they try hard enough, and no one tries harder than a spree killer who has decided he doesn't care if he survives anymore. Murder is already illegal. Making other parts of the process also illegal doesn't seem like a smart plan.

Then why doesn't this happen nearly as much in other countries where access to firearms is not nearly so easy?

Correlation does not equal causation

Also: I will repeat my argument that no one is calling for a total ban here. Those things did not work for Prohibition or the War on Drugs, but they did work for at least Prohibition, and it sounds like we'll figure out about drugs.

Typo? And cigarettes are the most successful campaign, yet kids still smoke if they try. If someone wanted to second-hand smoke your kid's classroom, they could do it.

You keep coming up with workaround excuses as to why the "proscribed strategy" (presumably, of limited access to firearms) will not be effective, despite evidence that other countries which have taken steps to more strictly regulate access to firearms have noticed an effective difference.

I challenge. Show me this evidence of a change.

Posted an article above, for Australia.

Two observations from that article: the change was in response to the single worst shooting in Australia's history by a long margin, similar to our second amendment being won in response to our single worst case of tyranny by a long margin. The fact that neither of these events recurred since then (nor before then) doesn't give us any useful information.
Second: John Howard agreed that our starting condition is significantly different from theirs, echoing Shaddim's post about guns being deeply embedded in our culture. Are you going to write him off as coming up with workaround excuses too?

Some of both. On general quality of life, on the ability of people to game the system, and on highway carnage, I am a firm believer. On guns I'm wishy washy; I've fired a gun about 5 times in my life, and never owned one. On legislating morality I guess I'm a zealot; the worst thing is when we become mindless automatons in the aftermath of misfortune, that's when the terrorists have won or whatever.

With all due respect, I'm not interested in doing a back and forth with someone who's just arguing to argue, doubly so when I'm under the impression that person is a lawyer (and therefore far better equipped for such a circumstance).

The reason I asked the question was because I have a hard to believing you really think all car and gun deaths are created equal.

Some of both. On general quality of life, on the ability of people to game the system, and on highway carnage, I am a firm believer. On guns I'm wishy washy; I've fired a gun about 5 times in my life, and never owned one. On legislating morality I guess I'm a zealot; the worst thing is when we become mindless automatons in the aftermath of misfortune, that's when the terrorists have won or whatever.

With all due respect, I'm not interested in doing a back and forth with someone who's just arguing to argue, doubly so when I'm under the impression that person is a lawyer (and therefore far better equipped for such a circumstance).

The reason I asked the question was because I have a hard to believing you really think all car and gun deaths are created equal.

I'm not and have never been a lawyer, and I don't even debate with people in real life (I require the ability to pause and search, and to proofread). But why aren't car deaths and gun deaths equal? What about terrorism deaths? Not arguing, I just don't know what you're getting at and I want to.

"Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said.

Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers.

I don't know why, but I was expecting they came illegally from overseas (I guess like drugs). However it sounds to me like criminals have so much access to guns because we as a people have so much access to guns.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

What about the civil war? Look I know it's hard to look past the orthogonal moralities of that conflict, but suppose it was the slave states that had been in power, would you want Washington's ability to disarm their political opponents to dictate the outcome of the conflict, if Washington had happened to be controlled by a southerner at the time?

The Civil War was exactly the only one I could think of when I asked. Of course, there's still disagreement over how justified that ****er was (let alone the cause) so I doubt it'll be settling the debate for us anytime soon.

Yeah but that's because they banned advertisements and product placements. Well after they went crazy trying to prevent the sale to minors.

You mean....[i]regulated the industry?[/i ]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

To me this is irrelevant. It's not that I don't share the same goals, I simply don't believe that the proscribed strategy will be at all effective.

Why not?

Drug war. Prohibition. And to a lesser extent, war on terror. And to a greater extent, kids still smoke, if they try hard enough, and no one tries harder than a spree killer who has decided he doesn't care if he survives anymore. Murder is already illegal. Making other parts of the process also illegal doesn't seem like a smart plan.

Then why doesn't this happen nearly as much in other countries where access to firearms is not nearly so easy?

Correlation does not equal causation

...but it sure can be a hint

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Also: I will repeat my argument that no one is calling for a total ban here. Those things did not work for Prohibition or the War on Drugs, but they did work for at least Prohibition, and it sounds like we'll figure out about drugs.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Typo? And cigarettes are the most successful campaign, yet kids still smoke if they try. If someone wanted to second-hand smoke your kid's classroom, they could do it.

Sorry: total bans did not work for Prohibition or the War on Drugs, but increased regulation worked in the alternative. Just like it has worked for smoking. Yes, kids still smoke "if they try", but far less of them try.

Look, if your argument is "we'll never be able to totally stop kids who are committed to obtaining guns for massacre purposes" then no one will argue with you; it's impossible to reach zero. But even the things you have mentioned here seem to indicate that you can reduce the instances. And I do not agree with an argument of "if we can't stop it entirely, we should not do anything".

You keep coming up with workaround excuses as to why the "proscribed strategy" (presumably, of limited access to firearms) will not be effective, despite evidence that other countries which have taken steps to more strictly regulate access to firearms have noticed an effective difference.

I challenge. Show me this evidence of a change.

Posted an article above, for Australia.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Two observations from that article: the change was in response to the single worst shooting in Australia's history by a long margin, similar to our second amendment being won in response to our single worst case of tyranny by a long margin. The fact that neither of these events recurred since then (nor before then) doesn't give us any useful information.

But the article also mentions the decline of instances of mass shooting in general:

Originally Posted by Article

In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

Second: John Howard agreed that our starting condition is significantly different from theirs, echoing Shaddim's post about guns being deeply embedded in our culture. Are you going to write him off as coming up with workaround excuses too?

I look at a word like "culture" and see something that has a different meaning from decade to decade. The US (and all other developed nations) has had a "culture of racism" and likely a "male-dominated culture" at one point in the recent past; most would admit that's not nearly so much the case today.

If you feel that culture cannot be changed, then go ahead and state that.

Then I refer you to the long list of other answers I gave to this question before you went all italic on me. Also, for the 3rd time, a violent culture is less likely to accept gun control. I'm not saying there isn't something causing the US to be more violent. But the violence can cause the laws as easily as vice versa, explaining the entire correlation.

Sorry: total bans did not work for Prohibition or the War on Drugs, but increased regulation worked in the alternative. Just like it has worked for smoking. Yes, kids still smoke "if they try", but far less of them try.

Look, if your argument is "we'll never be able to totally stop kids who are committed to obtaining guns for massacre purposes" then no one will argue with you; it's impossible to reach zero. But even the things you have mentioned here seem to indicate that you can reduce the instances. And I do not agree with an argument of "if we can't stop it entirely, we should not do anything".

Reducing from 20 million to 20 thousand is a big improvement, and far easier than reducing further from 20,000 to 20 (the same 99.9% reduction). And reducing from 20 to 2 is nigh impossible. Why? Because those final 20 out of 20 million were selected for. They are a biased sampling of the most stubborn, the most contrary, or the most mentally abnormal kids we have. That final 20 is where we're starting from on this problem. I'm not saying we must reduce to 0 or there's no point, I'm saying that you can't treat the final 20 in the same way you treat the first 20 million. You first have to figure out why they are in the final 20 to begin with, or else you won't decrease that 20 at all. And I'm not seeing any progress on that front.

Originally Posted by Article

In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

Yes but it was phrased that way to fluff the author's agenda. There was a cluster of "mass" shootings that decade, none with more than 10 deaths (according to the wikipedia link posted earlier). Then this one came by with 35 deaths, which by comparison is shocking I agree. However, 11 data points in a cluster like that is simply not enough to extrapolate a conclusion. I wish I could read some of the academic papers they referenced.

If you feel that culture cannot be changed, then go ahead and state that.

What I feel is that the culture exists for a historically valid reason, and I'm not prepared to abandon the lessons of history based only on what's happened to date. We've lost far more lives due to a far more recent historical development (automobiles), but somehow that cost in innocent lives is deemed worth it. I'm disgusted that we can be so flip about those lives just because of what I can only attribute to laziness: our fat asses can grasp the creature comforts of car travel, but we're too complacent to grasp the significance of the freedoms that the founding fathers bled for, the freedoms we've been taking for granted so much that we don't even realize we still have them (and could lose them).

Ok so keeping in mind that we can't expect above-board sources to have full accurate knowledge of the true workings of the criminal underworld, the article offers lots of plausible explanations, to which I would only add that imports might increase in a supply/demand type dynamic. It sounds a lot like how minors buy alcohol and cigarettes, IOW it's not hard to find loopholes in any regulation.

I want to point out that Shortcut has been emphasizing that a _total_ ban wouldn't work (per the war on drugs and prohibition), and a _partial_ ban is the way to go (per cigarettes and alcohol). However this article seems to be a good indication on how the exact same methods that teens use to skirt the alcohol and cigarette restrictions are being used already for guns too. I don't see a way to close those loopholes, do you?

Edit: I thought Shortcut used to be in law school or a lawyer, is that who you were thinking of?

The reason I asked the question was because I have a hard time believing you really think all car and gun deaths are created equal.

Well then frankly I'm having a hard time believing you don't. A death is a death, and absent more suffering or increasing incidence, the only reason to distinguish between the two is over vengeance, which is childish and pointless. What matters is reducing deaths, not finding a scapegoat.

Edit: what I mean is, intentional killings would be worse than accidents if for example the gain to the killer meant that killings were about to skyrocket. But that is clearly not the trend, current or past.

You mean the founding fathers built a democracy they didn't trust, so they added the right for the populace to take arms against the very government designed to represent them?

Yes. So, if they didn't , tried to sell us out or whatever, we get a few hundred guys with rifles and shoot and kill them. Many of the politicians hid in their offices in the senate during the civil war so as not to be killed by fellow statesmen. They brought their slaves too, which is why people live in the District of Columbia now who were never intended to.

Ok so keeping in mind that we can't expect above-board sources to have full accurate knowledge of the true workings of the criminal underworld

What the hell? What are you getting at?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

However this article seems to be a good indication on how the exact same methods that teens use to skirt the alcohol and cigarette restrictions are being used already for guns too. I don't see a way to close those loopholes, do you?

I don't think loopholes are the problem.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Edit: I thought Shortcut used to be in law school or a lawyer, is that who you were thinking of?

It was mrjinglesusa I was thinking of.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Well then frankly I'm having a hard time believing you don't. A death is a death, and absent more suffering or increasing incidence, the only reason to distinguish between the two is over vengeance, which is childish and pointless. What matters is reducing deaths, not finding a scapegoat.

You seem to be arguing context is irrelevant in regards to cause of death. Am I mistaken?

Ok so keeping in mind that we can't expect above-board sources to have full accurate knowledge of the true workings of the criminal underworld

What the hell? What are you getting at?

Bigger than usual grain of salt. Unlike most topics, the actual raw data is incentivized to lie to those collecting it. Why would they reveal their methods if doing so could contribute to the closure of those methods?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

However this article seems to be a good indication on how the exact same methods that teens use to skirt the alcohol and cigarette restrictions are being used already for guns too. I don't see a way to close those loopholes, do you?

I don't think loopholes are the problem.

Because I'm calling something that's technically already illegal a "loophole?" Ok, what do you call it when a teen hires a stranger to buy them some alcohol?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Edit: I thought Shortcut used to be in law school or a lawyer, is that who you were thinking of?

It was mrjinglesusa I was thinking of.

Ah

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Well then frankly I'm having a hard time believing you don't. A death is a death, and absent more suffering or increasing incidence, the only reason to distinguish between the two is over vengeance, which is childish and pointless. What matters is reducing deaths, not finding a scapegoat.

You seem to be arguing context is irrelevant in regards to cause of death. Am I mistaken?

Yes, context is relevant only so far as it aids prevention of further deaths (such as enforcement; if people see that they can get away with murder then there will be more murders). If I die in an accident it will be exactly as tragic as if I die in a shooting. Of course if a cute baby dies in an accident it is more tragic than if I die in an accident; I assume that's not the kind of context you meant.

You mean the founding fathers built a democracy they didn't trust, so they added the right for the populace to take arms against the very government designed to represent them?

Yes. So, if they didn't , tried to sell us out or whatever, we get a few hundred guys with rifles and shoot and kill them. Many of the politicians hid in their offices in the senate during the civil war so as not to be killed by fellow statesmen. They brought their slaves too, which is why people live in the District of Columbia now who were never intended to.

So the military and police force do what exactly, as you amass a few hundred guys with rifles (obviously a "well-regulated" militia) to march into DC and massacre the government?

Either they're on your side, in which case WTF do you need a bunch of amateurs keeping guns available for random nut jobs to shoot up elementary schools with? You have tens of thousands of professionals who can do the job much better.

Or they're against you, in which you're gonna need a HELL OF A LOT MORE than just "a few hundred guys with rifles" to stage a coup d'etat. If not an outright civil war.

This ISN'T the fault of a gun, but a failure of parents, schools and medical folks.
Banning guns has not worked. Banning clip due to size is BS.

If your planning to commit murder, why would you care about clip size?

So the fact that these guns were easily accessible due to absolutely no regulations didn't make this mass murder possible?

Had he only had a knife, he *possibly* would have killed one or two people — if he'd made it past security in the first place.

Had there been a law in place mandating that these guns were stored in a secure locker AT ALL TIMES unless at a shooting range or enroute there, this could not have happened.

And you know, that aspect of a law actually works, regardless of how stupid you believe people to be, or how stoned you believe ME to be.

Here, we had a school shooting some years ago, in Winnenden. The kid shot himself after a lengthy stand-off with police. Kicked off another massive round of discussion over gun regulations (though when they discovered that they couldn't really make them more secure, it sort of turned over to first-person-shooter games and then fizzled out).

But the other aspect was that HIS FATHER, who owned the guns but had failed to secure them properly, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 15 cases.

But the other aspect was that HIS FATHER, who owned the guns but had failed to secure them properly, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 15 cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I haven't read the details of how the latest shooter got the guns (I heard they were his mother's), and I don't know the law, but this kind of thing was the only solution I could come up with that didn't feel like it was infringing on gun owners rights while making access more difficult.

Bigger than usual grain of salt. Unlike most topics, the actual raw data is incentivized to lie to those collecting it. Why would they reveal their methods if doing so could contribute to the closure of those methods?

Criminal regularly reveal their methods for better deals. Why would this be any different?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Because I'm calling something that's technically already illegal a "loophole?" Ok, what do you call it when a teen hires a stranger to buy them some alcohol?

I didn't say it wasn't a loophole, I said the loophole isn't the problem.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yes, context is relevant only so far as it aids prevention of further deaths (such as enforcement; if people see that they can get away with murder then there will be more murders). If I die in an accident it will be exactly as tragic as if I die in a shooting. Of course if a cute baby dies in an accident it is more tragic than if I die in an accident; I assume that's not the kind of context you meant.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree. If someone dies from a car accident, or lung cancer, or a baloney sandwich, that's useful information. (Hell, with the car accident you could drill down further – was it flaws in the car design, alcoholic impairment, or a poorly regulated intersection)

Do you disagree because you don't consider this situation preventable?

That doesn't sound "regulated" at all.
It sounds like a nice regular thing, but it doesn't seem like there's any regulations governing how it's held, or how the gun aspect is handled. As mandated by the 2nd Amendment.

I make an awesome potato salad. (not German, it's Southern)

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine